Who here is tracking to DSD and why?

[mosrite]

I would like to gauge what my fellow recordists are doing with DSD at present as I am still to be convinced. To go properly DSD would take investment in new DACs and software.

1. Is anyone using it as an archiving format and if so is it through a belief that it will be the future digital medium? Is there any proof to substantiate that?

2. Along the same lines, does it not make more sense to archive at higher PCM as at least we have a host of readily available equipment already able to edit, monitor and convert this?

3. How good are the current software DSD to PCM convertors? Is there any arguement for recording at DSD and then going to PCM 44.1 as opposed to tracking at 44.1 intitially?

4. Has Sony's successful win of the next gen film formats with Blu-Ray secured any sort of life for DSD as a recording format?

[RickZ]

1. I've begun using my Korg MR-1000 for live acoustic concert recordings, both pipe organ and choral music, instead of Grace V2>Benchmark 2496 A/D>RME Multiface>Sony Vegas on Notebook PC, at 96/24. I have no examples of both recording system's output from same performance.

Given the relatively low cost of external drives to hold DSD files for a while, I don't mind hanging onto the the DSD version, and wait and see.

2. No opinion on that question.

3. Of the 3 pipe organ recitals I've recorded with MR-1000, on same organ as previous PCM recordings, I have to say the 96/32Bit IEEE Float output from Audiogate sounds clearer and more spacious than direct to PCM 96/24 of earlier recording method. I don't bother listening to DSD, as I can't deliver it anyway.

4. Probably too soon to tell.

In the meantime, my ears are telling me that I'm getting a better recording, although the difference is not that much, I'll admit. I have a gig tomorrow to record a colllege choir that I've recorded in the past with PCM rig, and will soon be able to know more.

Probably not much help, but . . .

Best regards,
Rick Z

[DSD_Mastering]

I've started recording/transfering to DXD. If I go DSD first, I have to convert to DXD anyway if I need to edit. Peter Scheelke said to start at DXD first, then go up/down if you need to at the end. I think this works great. On most things, I like the sound of DXD better over DSD.
For SRC, I just go through the hardware.

Regards,
Bruce

[MBishopSFX]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I would like to gauge what my fellow recordists are doing with DSD at present as I am still to be convinced. To go properly DSD would take investment in new DACs and software.

1. Is anyone using it as an archiving format and if so is it through a belief that it will be the future digital medium? Is there any proof to substantiate that?

2. Along the same lines, does it not make more sense to archive at higher PCM as at least we have a host of readily available equipment already able to edit, monitor and convert this?

3. How good are the current software DSD to PCM convertors? Is there any arguement for recording at DSD and then going to PCM 44.1 as opposed to tracking at 44.1 intitially?

4. Has Sony's successful win of the next gen film formats with Blu-Ray secured any sort of life for DSD as a recording format?

FIRST, separate recording format from release format. The two don't have to be directly related or the same, but you do want to be able to get from source recording to final release in the best-possible way.

1 & 2) My colleagues and I track, mix, master and archive to DSD on every in-house produced session. Because of this, we have the means installed to handle DSD at all these production points. It's no big deal. We also have loads of pcm and analog gear. I've tracked, mixed and mastered on every available pro format since the late 60s. I still will use analog and pcm on a occasional basis. I PREFER to work in DSD with excellent converters and I mix through an analog chain when needed, but NOT because I believe it'll be a viable release format (although it really should be!). For me, DSD-sourced masters are the best-possible source to keep for the future. Past and continuing comparison of converters and processes still tells me that well-performed DSD conversion gives me a recording closest to the analog source. Archival is always DSD if the source was DSD. I can use the DSD source to get to any release format needed in the future and be confident that I am drawing from a source that was as faithful as possible to the original analog mixing or mic-ing source.

3) The best DSD to pcm digital converter is the dCS 972. For me, this piece is the only digital means of getting from DSD to pcm. It's even better at pcm to DSD conversion! Re: the other part of this question - even if I only released on 44.1 CD, I'd certainly be tracking at 96k or 88.2k pcm. There's just no excuse to still be tracking at 44.1 pcm.

4) Yes, I think it's quite possible we can get DSD added as an optional format for Blu-ray now. There's a movement going on for this behind the scenes already.

I've used this analogy lots of times: The only means of commercial music release in the 40s, 50s and 60s was on either 78s, 45s or 33-1/3 LPs. Yet, pro analog magnetic recording formats were FAR beyond the capabilities of those release formats. The pro recording engineers of those eras knew that the quality of their recordings was far higher than the release mediums. That didn't stop them from striving to make something better than what the consumer would hear. Thank goodness they had that foresight for I continue to be amazed at the original recording quality of those times. Those engineers had pretty poor possibilities at the time that anyone would ever hear what they really had recorded! We certainly have benefited from their foresight to record for the FUTURE rather than the present. I hope we can have a similar vision for our recordings and work.

I do lots of sessions tracking to 8, 16, 24 & 32-track DSD on Sonoma systems. That path is giving me the best-possible of both the analog and digital worlds for tracking. The Sonoma is an extremely efficient tracking tool and editing system. If I need a tool that resides as a plugin on a pcm-only workstation, I'll simply transfer out at the highest-possible resolution, do the needed work and transfer back to DSD. I'll edit in only the part I need, leaving as much of the source DSD as intact as possible. Nobody has ever picked the processed parts out as being inferior.

For me, I wouldn't want to be tracking or mixing on any other format than DSD.

.

[Plush]

I record on a Stellavox SM-8 and then transfer to DSD.
I record on a Stellavox SM-8 and then transfer to PCM.
I record on a transistor free all tube system and then transfer to digital.

No big deal, all very pleasant.

I enjoy listening to the DSD playback off of the KORG box and we are a house of dCS.
Especially good with early music and plucked strings and lutes.

[videoteque]

3. How good are the current software DSD to PCM convertors? Is there any arguement for recording at DSD and then going to PCM 44.1 as opposed to tracking at 44.1 intitially?

I really hope this can improve with time, so rec in DSD for releasing in CD/DVD today makes sense.

[mosrite]

I've begun using my Korg MR-1000 for live acoustic concert recordings, both pipe organ and choral music, instead of Grace V2>Benchmark 2496 A/D>RME Multiface>Sony Vegas on Notebook PC, at 96/24.

Just to be clear, so you're choosing to record using the Korg's (DSD) ADC's over the Benchmarks PCM convertors?

So it seems that even with a relatively cheap device like the Korg (or Tascam), their internal ADC's in DSD mode beat more expensive PCM convertors? And if what you're saying is true (with the software conversion to PCM being so good) does this negate the need to spend lots of money on expensive PCM convertors?

I've used this analogy lots of times: The only means of commercial music release in the 40s, 50s and 60s was on either 78s, 45s or 33-1/3 LPs. Yet, pro analog magnetic recording formats were FAR beyond the capabilities of those release formats. The pro recording engineers of those eras knew that the quality of their recordings was far higher than the release mediums. That didn't stop them from striving to make something better than what the consumer would hear. Thank goodness they had that foresight for I continue to be amazed at the original recording quality of those times. Those engineers had pretty poor possibilities at the time that anyone would ever hear what they really had recorded! We certainly have benefited from their foresight to record for the FUTURE rather than the present. I hope we can have a similar vision for our recordings and work.

Good illustration and thanks for your excellent post.

[CPTenorII]

Originally Posted by MBishopSFX

FIRST, separate recording format from release format. The two don't have to be directly related or the same, but you do want to be able to get from source recording to final release in the best-possible way.

1 & 2) My colleagues and I track, mix, master and archive to DSD on every in-house produced session. Because of this, we have the means installed to handle DSD at all these production points. It's no big deal. We also have loads of pcm and analog gear. I've tracked, mixed and mastered on every available pro format since the late 60s. I still will use analog and pcm on a occasional basis. I PREFER to work in DSD with excellent converters and I mix through an analog chain when needed, but NOT because I believe it'll be a viable release format (although it really should be!). For me, DSD-sourced masters are the best-possible source to keep for the future. Past and continuing comparison of converters and processes still tells me that well-performed DSD conversion gives me a recording closest to the analog source. Archival is always DSD if the source was DSD. I can use the DSD source to get to any release format needed in the future and be confident that I am drawing from a source that was as faithful as possible to the original analog mixing or mic-ing source.

3) The best DSD to pcm digital converter is the dCS 972. For me, this piece is the only digital means of getting from DSD to pcm. It's even better at pcm to DSD conversion! Re: the other part of this question - even if I only released on 44.1 CD, I'd certainly be tracking at 96k or 88.2k pcm. There's just no excuse to still be tracking at 44.1 pcm.

4) Yes, I think it's quite possible we can get DSD added as an optional format for Blu-ray now. There's a movement going on for this behind the scenes already.

I've used this analogy lots of times: The only means of commercial music release in the 40s, 50s and 60s was on either 78s, 45s or 33-1/3 LPs. Yet, pro analog magnetic recording formats were FAR beyond the capabilities of those release formats. The pro recording engineers of those eras knew that the quality of their recordings was far higher than the release mediums. That didn't stop them from striving to make something better than what the consumer would hear. Thank goodness they had that foresight for I continue to be amazed at the original recording quality of those times. Those engineers had pretty poor possibilities at the time that anyone would ever hear what they really had recorded! We certainly have benefited from their foresight to record for the FUTURE rather than the present. I hope we can have a similar vision for our recordings and work.

I do lots of sessions tracking to 8, 16, 24 & 32-track DSD on Sonoma systems. That path is giving me the best-possible of both the analog and digital worlds for tracking. The Sonoma is an extremely efficient tracking tool and editing system. If I need a tool that resides as a plugin on a pcm-only workstation, I'll simply transfer out at the highest-possible resolution, do the needed work and transfer back to DSD. I'll edit in only the part I need, leaving as much of the source DSD as intact as possible. Nobody has ever picked the processed parts out as being inferior.

For me, I wouldn't want to be tracking or mixing on any other format than DSD.

.

Who makes the DCS 972? I cannot find info on it anywhere.

[Teddy Ray]

umm..

dCS makes the dCS


dCS: What We Do

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by MBishopSFX

If I need a tool that resides as a plugin on a pcm-only workstation, I'll simply transfer out at the highest-possible resolution, do the needed work and transfer back to DSD. I'll edit in only the part I need, leaving as much of the source DSD as intact as possible. Nobody has ever picked the processed parts out as being inferior.

If nobody has been able to find those parts which were converted to PCM for processing, why all the DSD hassle and not doing the whole thing in hi-res PCM to begin with?

[Teddy Ray]

I tend to side with Mr. Putzeys(him being an expert in the subject)

he said that the only time DSD is useful is when one is transferring from analogue through a DSD converter straight to disc.

[Audiop]

I believe PCM will continue to be the no 1 audio format for many many years.

Reason is it's good enough (= transparent) for most listeners and program material and easier to process.

I believed SACD/DSD was a superior format for some time.. until I did some tests feeding the output from my SACD player into a AD/DA PCM loop and could not hear a difference.

Comparing the SACD layer with redbook layer on the same disc I could hear a difference.. you do the math! :-)


/Peter

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Comparing the SACD layer with redbook layer on the same disc I could hear a difference.. you do the math! :-)/Peter

I'm afraid I am so cynical and suspicious that I believe these might not be derived from the same master, hence the sonic difference.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

I'm afraid I am so cynical and suspicious that I believe these might not be derived from the same master, hence the sonic difference.

I think you may be on to something there David.. :-)

Also there's a possibility that the player puts out the SACD stream and redbook stream at slightly different levels.


/Peter

[rumleymusic]

I doesn't look like DSD will survive into the next generation of high resolution titles. The few Blu-Ray audio titles out there are uncompressed multi channel PCM. There are a few areas where SACD missed the mark.

a) It requires a specialized player most were not willing to buy
b) It is a unique format targeting only one market group (high end audiophile)
c) It is a specialized production process that is not available to most content creators.

The nice thing about Blu-Ray is that is addresses all these problems. It requires no special player, any Blu-Ray will do, the format is used for movies, games, and music so the production has the potential to become very cheap and readily available, and it is possible for any user with a computer to create and burn the content (once an appropriate authoring software is developed for the mass market). Blu-Ray players and disks also alow for multiple layer options, and online content, for a more customizable and vivid experience for the increasingly demanding market.

There is a very convincing AES seminar on the subject.

[roonsbane]

Peter said:

Also there's a possibility that the player puts out the SACD stream and redbook stream at slightly different levels.

Right! also, I have the first Pioneer DSD player which does not have DSD D/A converters. Only PCM. I imagine this may be pretty typical. Also, practically every available receiver out there is converting it to PCM anyway and has pcm DSP chips that provide all of the processing. Unless consumers have a fairly high end stereo, it is very difficult to keep the data entirely in the DSD domain. These days as a listener it may be better to buy the best receiver you can and bring data in on a light pipe connector from your CD/DVD player keeping it PCM the entire way. I imagine even high end McIntosh receivers these days are converting the music to PCM, though I haven't done the research.

Consider how difficult and expensive it would be to put together a "tweaky" non dsp surround system for your home system. You would try to take discreet DSD outputs into some kind of entirely analog surround controller into 5 matched amps, then in to 5 speakers, plus the sub system. I bet less than .1% of listeners have actually achieved this. I have actually never seen this anywhere in person but at a studio. One studio I mean. The facility I work in that has the Neve 88R with the $6000 hand matched resistor surround volume knob.

A buddy who has a few mastering engineer buddies that work with DSD say they can can't hear the difference between high sample rate PCM and DSD projects that they are working on. Instead at the end of the day they feel better when working on DSD. Meaning less stressed. That's pretty heady stuff.
Cameron

[Plush]

Happy Memorial Day!

dCS discontinued all their pro recording converters and the like. NOw they make converters and cd players and the like for high end audiophiles.

This choice of the company does tell us where the money is doesn't it?
It also shows how high end hi-fi manufacturers can rape and over charge the customer.

We purchased our dCS gear in the 1990's and it is still working great.

[CPTenorII]

I believe DSD is useful mostly as a mastering and archival format. My understanding is that conversion of DSD to PCM is much better than between PCM formats. For this reason, masters can be put into DSD for eventual conversion to any desired format of PCM. This is the workflow I intend to use. what I need to determine is the best way to do this. I will be tracking and mixing at 96/24. I need to take the digital output of a digital mixer and convert it to DSD. Otherwise, I'll have to use conversion software "in the box".

[Plush]

Hello CP Tenor,

I believe you will need to convert your digital pcm stream to DSD in the computer as a two step process. I know of no box that will take a PCM 24/96 stream and convert it on the fly to DSD.

For your recordings I recommend the Weiss SARACON software. YOu probablyl already know about it.

Computers are quite powerful now so conversion between all pcm rates is not a hard thing to do.

I think that releasing the final edited material on SACD is a fine marketing move. SACD is a good release format. Whether or not one records in DSD is of little matter these days.

DG abandoned DSD after blind tests revealed that they (Stefan Flock led the tests) were not able to tell the difference between DSD and 24/96.

My colleagues at the Chicago Symphony are releasing excellent recordings
done in DSD and edited in DXD on Pyramix.

I happen to prefer sounds that are made with tubes and heavy transformer sound---all analog. This can be captured by a good digital system running at a high rate.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

I think as we move to downloads and less and less discs are sold, that DSD will indeed go by the wayside.

[Mats H]

Hi,

1. I record direct to stereo to DSD with my KORG MR-1000 box when I can get away with only using 2 mics. I do mostly archival recordings for orchestras and choirs. It gives me a very relaxed and detailed sound, though it does sound very good in PCM mode as well. I find the upper octaves sound more effortless in DSD than PCM, so I save the DFF files for future us.

2. I process the sound at 96k because I find my system sounds the best at that sample rate. So I also save another copy of the original audio at 96 KHz, mostly for my own pleasure when listening to the music for recreation.

3. I haven't done a proper comparison between an original DSD and 44.1 KHz recording but Audiogate has quite good format conversion. For 96 KHz to 44.1 I use Izotope S/R conversion. I believe that the combination of recording at a high bit rate, processing at a high bit rate and then downsampling to the final delivery format is beneficial to the final audio quality.

4. Too early to tell but I doubt it. I regularly purchase surround music in 2496 PCM, recorded in DXD by the Norwegian label 2L and sit down and enjoy it regularly, but none of my friends outside the audio recording community has any clue about current, past or future high res formats. Blu-ray is very slowly growing onto people in Sweden, closing in on DVDs and vinyl has recently found a renaissanse. However, people purchase surround rigs for their home theatre that cost $150 so, really, those last 3% of audio performance is hardly needed.